07.30.10

It has always amazed me that the world would choose to believe terrorist, who are consistently caught in their lies, over that of Israel, but it seems to happen quite often. That is until the real story accidentally slips out.

With Hamas telling tales of deprivation and suffering in Gaza, Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu al-Houl has added his report to others who were surprised to discover a “prosperous” Gaza in which prices are low and luxury businesses are booming. Al-Houl’s story of his trip to Gaza and his realization that “in actual terms, Gaza is not under siege” was written up in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“A sense of absolute prosperity prevails, as manifested by the grand resorts along and near Gaza’s coast. Further, the site of the merchandise and luxuries filling the Gaza shops amazed me,” he reported.

Concerned that his initial impression of prosperity may have been misleading, “I toured the new resorts, most of which are quite grand, as well as the commercial markets, to verify my hypothesis. The resorts and markets have come to symbolize prosperity, and to prove that the siege is formal or political, not economic,” Al-Houl said.

Gaza’s markets are filled with a “plethora of goods,” he wrote. Prices on many items, particularly food, are much lower than they are in Egypt, he said. With goods entering Gaza from both smuggling tunnels to Egypt and humanitarian aid shipments coming in via Israeli crossings, “supply is much greater than demand,” he stated.

The evident prosperity is not enjoyed by all, or even most, of Gaza’s residents, according to Al-Houl. The problem is the vast differences in the distribution of wealth. The luxury resorts and wide range of consumer goods are enjoyed by “only a few groups,” he said, primarily those who own smuggling tunnels to Egypt and those who work for international organizations such as the United Nations’ UNRWA and who do not include or aid the rest of the population.

Most of the new resorts “are owned by members, or associates, of Hamas,” he reported. “In addition, the Hamas municipalities charge high fees, in Gaza terms, for the use of public beaches,” he added.

Al-Houl quoted political activist Mustafa Ibrahim as saying that while Gaza’s rich invest in the leisure industry, 80% of residents rely on UNRWA, and unemployment is approximately 45%. “This creates a distorted picture,” Ibrahim explained.

Another fine example of how the so-called “peace loving” Muslims aren’t.

The following are excerpts from an address delivered by Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi, which aired on Al-Nas TV on July 11, 2010.

Saladin’s Mother Taught Her Son To Play With A Stick And A Ball

“When he was young, Saladin used to play this game. His mother chose for him a sport that was suitable for Jihad. She did not choose a game like backgammon or billiards, or any other soft and laid-back game. No. She chose a sport that would teach him Jihad and fighting – the game of stick and ball, which is like polo.”

“You should choose the sport that your son will play. I’m not saying that a child should not play, but he should play a game that will benefit him when he grows up.

“Today, all our children sit in front of the computer and the PlayStation, and play games that will never lead them to wage Jihad.”

We said this at the time the health care “reform” was being considered. Those who actually thought an executive order would actually work, were fooled.

The Congressional Research Service, a government agency, confirms that abortions can be funded under “ObamaCare.” The president’s executive order, reports CRS, “does not specifically address high-risk pools and the funds provided under Section 1101 of [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act].”

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America says the CRS report proves the executive order was “an empty promise.” She tells OneNewsNow that with the CRS report in hand, the president and health officials need to get into action.

“President Obama and Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius ought to institute regulations to ensure that President Obama’s promise is lived up to and that our tax dollars will not be used to fund elective abortions,” states Wright.

Then again, laws passed by Congress have more weight than presidential executive orders and health agency rules. For that very reason, the CWFA spokeswoman says Congress should act and pass a bill to ensure that abortion funding will be banned.

“And even better than that, Congress should repeal this bill,” she adds. “Congress should learn from this fiasco that ObamaCare has some nasty surprises in it — and it should repeal the whole thing.”

The public is finally waking up to what Obama really is…a socialist, egomaniac who will destroy our nation, as we know it, if he is not stopped in November.

Even though unemployment rates are at double digits, the president is crisscrossing the country, telling voters not to abandon the Democrats for the GOP. He claims Republicans caused the current economic crisis and that it will take time for Democrats to reverse the financial downturn.

Dr. Charles W. Dunn, dean of Regent University’s School of Government, thinks the Obama administration needs to take responsibility for its own policy decisions and stop blaming former President George W. Bush. He also notes that voters are becoming weary of his rhetoric.

“He promised a lot; he’s delivered little — and that’s created a credibility gap,” Dunn explains. “The public increasingly [does] not trust his leadership because of a high level of promise with a low level of performance.”

07.29.10

A federal judge today ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University’s recent decision to remove a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling because she refused to provide counseling for homosexual clients on the basis of her religious beliefs.

The student, Julea Ward, had filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the school leading up to today’s court ruling after she was told by the school that she would “only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality”, according to a Fox News report.

The judge wrote the following, in part, in his decision (emphasis added mine), “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

For EMU to tell Miss Ward that she would have to change her “belief system” and “see the error of her ways” in order to continue obtaining her education was nothing short of asking her to deny the Word of God and, essentially, refute her Christian faith. The court did the same in this instance, the judge noting that Miss Ward’s sole reason for failing to comply with the university’s requirements was her Christian faith!

Make no mistake about it, today’s ruling has set a very dangerous precedent, endangering Christian students seeking higher education across the United States of America. For now, public universities, the majority of which are so liberal that Christian students are already ridiculed beyond what should be acceptable for refusing to believe in politically correct societal trends and scientific theories which fly in the face of God’s Word, are going to be able to require Christian students to compromise or, for all practical purposes, abandon their faith without fear of reprisal. While we can hope this was but an isolated incident, it’s hard for me to believe that greater persecution of Christian students isn’t going to occur on the heels of this ruling, which the Alliance Defense Fund is going to be appealing on behalf of Miss Ward.

For a long time now, Christians in the United States have avoided the sharp sting of persecution others have known in nations less free than our own, but the spirit of antichrist is flourishing in the hallowed halls of government and courtrooms all over our nation today. Should the Lord delay His coming much longer, there is little doubt in my mind that freedom of religion, as enshrined in our nation’s Constitution by our founding fathers, is going to be a thing of the past.

Christians are being forced to accept the world view in place of our morals and beliefs.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Obama and the Democrats have stripped us of yet another one of our freedoms.

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings.”

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”

If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.

“The new provision applies to information obtained through examinations or derived from that information,” said SEC spokesman John Nester. “We are expanding our examination program’s surveillance and risk assessment efforts in order to provide more sophisticated and effective Wall Street oversight. The success of these efforts depends on our ability to obtain documents and other information from brokers, investment advisers and other registrants. The new legislation makes certain that we can obtain documents from registrants for risk assessment and surveillance under similar conditions that already exist by law for our examinations. Because registrants insist on confidential treatment of their documents, this new provision also removes an opportunity for brokers, investment advisers and other registrants to refuse to cooperate with our examination document requests.”

Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management
in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”

07.28.10

The Obama administration had gone to federal court to kill Arizona’s new illegal-immigration law, scheduled to go into effect on Thursday. The Department of Justice argues that enforcement of the Arizona law “is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Does this mean that if Team Obama prevails over Arizona, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities should prepare to go to court against the feds?

After all, the Obama brief argues that “a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

In 1989, Ess Eff passed a sanctuary city ordinance, which prohibits city employees from working with federal immigration officials, unless required by federal law, state law or warrant.

In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is running for lieutenant governor, announced he would not allow city “department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way, shape or form” with Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids to arrest immigrant fugitives who had criminal records or had violated deportation orders.

Even when federal law required cooperation, San Francisco had declined. Some time around 2005, city officials determined that they would not notify federal authorities when undocumented juveniles — or criminals who simply claimed to be under 18 — were charged with felonies. Instead, the city sent serious and repeat offenders into under-supervised group homes and even flew some offenders back to their home countries.

In 2008, after the feds detained a probation officer flying an illegal immigrant to Honduras, Newsom told city workers to notify ICE when undocumented minors were arrested on felony charges, as per federal law. But the sanctuary city policy itself stands.

Now one would think that if the Obama administration cannot brook “a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,” the U.S. Department of Justice would have sued San Francisco to end its sanctuary city program. But apparently, Team Obama objects when a state wants to enforce the law — instead of flout it.

OK, I want this on record.
The next time someone wants to blame Republicans for a possible reinstatement of the draft. It is (and has been in the past) the Democrats who have proposed this, not the Republicans.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would reinstate a compulsory military draft during war time and require U.S. citizens not selected for military duty to perform a “national service obligation” – as defined by President Obama – for a minimum of two years.

Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act, or H.R. 5741 on July 15. The measure was referred to the House Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23.

Rangel introduced similar bills in 2003, 2006 and 2007. His current bill does not have a co-sponsor.

Rangel took to the floor of the House to reintroduce HR 5741, stating, “I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is HR 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened.”

According to an announcement released by Rangel’s office, the bill provides for:

* A national service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

* Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the president declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.

* Defines “national service” as either military or civilian service as defined by the president that promotes national or homeland security.

* Give the president the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

* Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.

* Directs the president to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.

* Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.

* Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.

At last week’s International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria, the Obama administration pledged the support of the U.S. in the global fight against AIDS. But one pro-family activist points out that an important aspect is missing from the undertaking.

“It’s not a big mystery about what helps cause AIDS, and yet one key portion — homosexual practice, homosexual sex — is just off the table,” notes Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). “And then we wonder why we can’t keep this disease in check.”

He compares this issue to the Wizard of Oz or the emperor who has no clothes. “There’s a lot of talk about fighting AIDS, but they’re not really serious about one of the key causes, which is homosexual behavior,” he laments.

It’s too bad the president couldn’t make room for this important Boy Scout jamboree.

President Obama will make history as the first sitting president on a daytime talk show when he visits with the ladies of “The View.” But he’ll be missing out on another historic occasion — the Boy Scouts’ Jamboree marking the group’s 100th anniversary, right in the president’s backyard.

The Jamboree kicked off this week at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, where organizers had invited the president to speak to the 45,000 scouts in attendance. All three of Obama’s predecessors have made it to one Jamboree while in office.

But the president will instead be traveling Wednesday to New York for a taping of the ABC show, as well as Democratic fundraisers and a stop in New Jersey. The talk show appearance comes as campaign season moves into full swing, but also amid efforts to cap the Gulf oil spill for good, contain the damage from an unprecedented leak of Afghanistan war documents and battle Arizona over its immigration law — set to go into effect Thursday. Obama also has an out-of-town event planned for Friday in Detroit.

But while the Jamboree lasts until next Tuesday, the president is sending his regards via a videotaped message.

Boy Scouts of America spokesman Deron Smith said the organization knew Obama’s invitation would hinge on his schedule and found out two months ago that he would not be able to attend.

President Obama was apparently moved enough by a letter from a Philadelphia fifth-grader about bullying that he wrote back and encouraged his correspondent to continue her quest to end bullying. Oh, how rich the irony!

Barack Obama is nothing if not a bully. There, I said it, and I believe it’s true, no matter how politically incorrect and inconsistent with the mainstream media’s narrative it is.

Before getting to some examples, let me direct your attention to the White House’s comments on the exchange and the reaction of Obama’s fifth-grade correspondent, Zina Stokes.

White House spokeswoman Moira Mack said, “The president feels it is important to hear directly from the American people about their ideas and concerns.”

Zina Stokes said: “He showed how he cares. I think even before his four years are up, when he gets done with the oil spill, something will be done with bullying in school.”

Though those two statements appear innocuous enough, they reveal a prevalent attitude being promoted by the Obama White House and increasingly embraced by a growing dependency culture.

It’s laudable for a president to want to hear the concerns of the people, but it’s not healthy to encourage people to believe that the buck for every problem stops at the White House. Many problems fall outside the proper scope of government, and classroom bullying is one. Though liberals often try to politicize aspects or categories of “bullying” and to twist the term to serve some politically correct agenda, this is a matter best left to local school administrations and school boards. When government fosters the notion that eradicating bullying is the federal government’s business, it does a disservice to our culture.

In her response, Zina Stokes makes my point. “When he gets done with the oil spill” — as if he’s going to remedy that personally — “something will be done with bullying in school.”

Clearly, Zina believes Obama should and will intervene directly on this matter and micromanage a solution in her school and others across the nation. To her credit, however, at least Zina is also taking a proactive approach and lobbying schools to address the problem. Even she instinctively understands that people must not wait on a big federal government to solve their problems.

But it’s especially ironic that Obama’s spokeswoman touted Obama’s receptiveness to the will of the people, for in his own bullying, he exhibits the opposite tendency. He consistently runs roughshod over the will of the people to implement his agenda, about which he will brook neither dissent nor criticism.

07.27.10

The folks at the Office of Management and Budget have released an update of the budget deficit. The latest estimate shows the budget deficit reaching a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is now borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

The forecast for the U.S. is incredibly dire. The gap for 2011 is only seen narrowing to $1.42 trillion. Projections show the U.S. national debt doubling between now and 2020, when it’s forecast to hit over $26 trillion. These latest figures show the debt will top 100 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 2012.

The outlook for jobs is equally grim. The estimate for unemployment has the economy experiencing a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates. By 2012, the unemployment rate will still be above 8.1 percent.

What is truly scary about these numbers is that they come from the federal government. The Office of Management and Budget has always painted the most rosy vision for future budgets. This current forecast is criticized for being overly optimistic for economic growth. The projects call for 3.2 percent this year, 3.6 percent in 2011, and 4.2 percent in 2012. The vast majority of the Wall Street economists see us as being lucky to stay at about zero growth.

The real problem with our national debt rests with entitlement programs. There are simply too many people living off government handouts.

Historian Alexander Tyler said, “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury.”

Author Alexis de Tocqueville added to this idea, saying, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

Our path towards socialism began when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935. “We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age,” said Roosevelt.

Decades later, we have reached the point where Tyler and Tocqueville have been proven correct. The name of the game is to get as much as you can from the government.

Right now, the state of Illinois is suffering from one of the worst recessions since the depression. Illinois is currently $13 billion in debt and faces a massive budget crisis. Despite the hard times, Illinois construction workers are demanding a wage increase of 15.9 percent over the next three years. They currently make $50 to $68 an hour.

Last week in Bell, California, the salaries of three municipal officials sparked a firestorm of outrage. Robert Rizzo, the city manager, was being paid $784,637. The assistant city manager earns $375,000, and the police chief was getting $475,000. Rizzo has stepped down, but that doesn’t end his burden on the city. The fifty-six-year-old will draw an immense pension, between $650,000 and $880,000 per year.

I find it amazing that the focus on our financial debt problem seems to be waning. People seem to have adopted a “what-I-don’t-see-can’t-hurt-me” mindset. I’ve stayed on this story because I know we can’t go on like this for very much longer.

We are eventually going to hit the wall. When the financial system breaks down, people may be shocked at how fast our economy implodes. Iceland and Greece were relatively stable nations, but within a matter of days, both nations found themselves facing national bankruptcy. Lucky for them, they are small nations that were able to get a handout from the global community.

America is too big for any bailout. At best, the world could put together a trillion-dollar rescue package. We would burn that amount of money in a matter of months. If we should collapse, the rest of world will either seek shelter or try to profit from our downfall.

I am as certain as I can be that a huge financial collapse is headed our way. The timing seems to imply that it has a strong link to prophecy. If that is the case, the only rescue package I’m looking forward to is the one from the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man” (Luke 21:36).

07.26.10

The illegal immigrant advocates may have a harder time than they believe.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has not indicated whether she will put the law on hold before it takes effect later this week, but as Associated Press notes, she did go beyond “dry legal analysis” at court hearings on Thursday to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how they apply to the new law.

The judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about illegal aliens and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She also regarded the stash houses where smugglers hide illegals before bringing them into the country’s interior as a fixture on the news in Arizona.

“She is aware of what is going on in Arizona,” [Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)] continues. “She lives with it every single day, just as everybody else in Arizona is living with it. And that is precisely why the vast majority of people in Arizona support this law because they do recognize that it’s having an impact on their lives, on their security, on their tax dollars, [and] on everything that’s important to them.” Mehlman concludes that it is “impossible to ignore the realities that exist.”

The November mid-term elections are gearing up to be an exciting and most critical race that will undoubtedly alter the political face of this country. Those who stand in staunch opposition to the “tax and spend” policies of the Obama administration and other polemical legislation have galvanized their forces and are ready to make their voices heard to the American electorate. One of those people is Jay Townsend, a GOP candidate for United States Senator for the State of New York. Seeking to unseat the incumbent; Sen. Charles Schumer, the senior senator from New York, Jay Townsend articulates his position on the issues that effect the future of New Yorkers throughout the length and breadth of the state. I sat down with Mr. Townsend to find out more about “the man who would be Senator.”

FS: You started your career as a political consultant. What kinds of campaigns did you work on and which candidates did you support?

JT: I was born and raised a Democrat in the mode of Winston Churchill. And as Churchill said, “Anyone under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart.” Since my 30s, however, my political philosophies changed and I decided to work on campaigns for Republican candidates such as Gov. Pete Wilson, who is an accomplished mind. I worked on local campaigns in New York State as well including Hudson County and Orange County. On a personal note, I was a late bloomer and married at age 38. It was then that I decided that life on the road as a political consultant was no longer tenable and instead of living out of a suitcase, I decided to stay home with my family.

FS: Why, at this juncture in time did you decide to enter politics?

JT: It was last January when I was very inspired by the people of Massachusetts, elected Scott Brown to be their US Senator, which was a seat that had always been held by Ted Kennedy, a liberal Democrat. The people of Massachusetts were outraged by the prospect of the health-care reform bill that was looming in the Senate and wanted a candidate who vowed to vote against it. There were a growing number of people from outside of Massachusetts that contributed to his campaign. It was at that point, that I decided that there were those in New York State who just didn’t grasp the message of what his election represented. I called GOP party leaders in New York and asked if we have anyone who could or would challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer; a fervent supporter of the health-care reform legislation and the Obama agenda. Since that juncture in time, others in the party decided that the waters were warm for a victory. There’s no doubt that the President’s plans for “change” in America scares me and many others to death and I decided to throw my hat in the ring.

FS: Concerning your position on the BP oil spill, considered to be the greatest environmental disaster in US history, do you think that President Obama is handling it in the most effective way possible and what is your position on his interdiction on further domestic drilling?

JT; No, I don’t think President Obama has handled this well at all. The United States received offers from many other countries to assist us and Obama refused to accept these offers. Right now, there are only several countries that are trying to help. We have to learn that we can accept help; especially in this case that represents the most significant environmental disaster in our country’s history. The President should have immediately accepted help. He must accept some responsibility. He adamantly refused to waive the Jones Act, even temporarily, which would have eased the way for foreign vessels to move in U.S. waters and between ports. Our European allies, who are longtime opponents of the Jones Act, have asserted they were turned away when making offers of assistance. The State Department acknowledges it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries. Rather than waiving the Jones Act and allowing the international community to help us, President Obama pandered to the labor unions at the expense of the environment. He is protecting the pocketbooks of his union allies by keeping foreign vessels at bay, and for that, we must question the competence of this administration.

FS: You said you oppose the Obama administration’s plan for a “cap and trade” carbon emissions policy and the clean energy act known as Waxman-Markey. Could you tell elaborate on that?

JT: Senator Schumer would like to pass this bill in the senate. By passing this bill, in essence, you make it harder for us to break our ties with foreign oil suppliers. The unhappy effect will be the spike in the price of gas and fuel. I suggest that we tap American ingenuity and allow it to work. My question is: Why was BP in water out that deep? If they had been allowed to be closer to shore, then this horrific mess wouldn’t have happened. Our imperial Congress says we don’t have to look at it for what it is.

Paying despots such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for oil supplies translates into exporting our capitol to terrorists. We have to be willing to look at other options. We should allow companies to explore domestic drilling options. Our dependence on foreign oil is partly our own fault. I would love to have clean energy and I love “green” but our society is now dependent on fossil fuels. We can and should increase domestic supplies of energy by making more federal land available for oil exploration. Because of advances in technology, it is possible for companies to drill in ecologically friendly ways. In the barren terrain of Alaska, for example, studies show that we could draw the rough equivalent of 20 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia, and perhaps tens of billions more barrels of oil in unexplored parts of the Alaskan tundra. We should also begin drilling, in an ecologically conscious manner, off our coasts. Passage of this cap and tax bill will drain more manufacturing jobs from the US and it will kill the American economy.

According to The Heritage Foundation, enactment of Waxman-Markey would result in the loss of more than 55,000 jobs and cut our gross state product by more than $25 billion over the next two decades. Electricity prices would rise by $370 per year for the average family, and the price of gasoline would increase by $.66 per gallon. The cap and trade bill is a back door tax increase, and the result will be fewer dollars left in the hands of New Yorkers already struggling to balance the family budget and survive an anemic economy.

FS: Concerning the Obama administration’s position on the burgeoning Iranian nuclear threat; do you think that the latest round of economic sanctions will prove fruitful and what path do you believe the US should take on this?

JT; I don’t think that we’re serious about enforcing these sanctions. We must come to the realization that we have enemies in the world and we have to stop pretending that we can negotiate with these enemies. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only understands brute strength. Clearly, the nuclear threat emanating from Iran is indeed imminent. The imposition of sanctions on Iran will only prove to be another feckless attempt to stop the nuclear threat, unless we convince other countries to participate fully. We should try and enlist the help of the European Union, Japan and state owned banks and we must make the sanctions systematic. We should include all insurance and re-insurance on ships going to Iran. I also feel that we have to target the central bank. Basically, my argument with the Obama administration is that you cannot be patient with a tyrant and that is what Ahmadinejad is. He is never going to like us and we had better get accustomed to that.

FS: As you know, there has been a dramatic shift in US foreign policy towards Israel. The US is pressuring Israel to relinquish parts of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state along with the settlements in Judea and Samaria. Do you think the creation of a Palestinian state is in America’s best interest and would you support an Israeli strike on Iran as former US Ambassador John Bolton has suggested?

JT: Israel is our closest and best ally and Israel deserves to be treated as an ally. I felt that President Obama used the first year of his presidency to rub the nose of Israel in the dirt. Senator Schumer refused to voice his opposition to this. Look, if President Bush had done to Israel what Obama is doing, then Senator Schumer would have vociferously protested. I don’t believe that Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. That is patently ridiculous. I don’t believe that the creation of a Palestinian state will bring peace to this war torn region and I vehemently oppose the creation of a state that would represent an existential threat to Israel’s security. I would certainly support Israel’s right to defend herself against the Iranian nuclear threat because that is in America’s best interest.

Senator Schumer’s objective is to become the majority leader in the US Senate and he is willing to sell New York State down the drain to achieve that goal. His silence on the pressure Israel is facing from this administration and his silence on the Iranian nuclear threat has been deafening. Over the last six months, Senator Schumer has held press conferences on such inane issues as airline baggage fees, the increase of salt in cheeseburgers, sunscreen and Facebook but he won’t utter a word of protest regarding the president’s treatment of Israel. Senators can make noise and they are indeed in a unique position to make such noise and I plan to do just that.

FS: The demonization of Israel is growing at alarming proportions not only on our college campuses but also throughout the world, especially in Europe. Cloaking itself under the banner of anti-Zionism, it is clear that this movement is anti-Semitic in nature. What would you do in the Senate to help stop this dangerous phenomenon and how would you work to support Israel’s position vis a vis the US?

JT: I believe that our support for Israel cannot be limited to uttering platitudes. America needs to support Israel militarily as well. It is America’s best interest to insure that Israel possesses access to the best military technology available. The Prime Minister of Israel’s responsibility and obligation is to the safety, welfare and health of his nation and its citizens and he should not be excoriated for doing so. Israel should never be held to a standard that we wouldn’t hold ourselves to. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Israel demanded that the USA negotiate with leaders of countries that deny our right to exist? That would never be tolerated so why should Israel be expected to tolerate that kind of nonsense. There is a double standard when it comes to Israel and Senator Schumer knows this. Why is he afraid to call his president on the carpet for doing this? Why doesn’t he finally stand up for the constituency that elected him?

FS: I understand that you will work towards repealing the health-care reform bill. You call this an “entitlement” that this country cannot afford. What kind of reforms would you replace it with that would lower health care costs?

JT: I don’t oppose health insurance reform. I oppose the way it was done. I think we should encourage our free market to work. Let’s allow the sale of health insurance policies across state lines. Let’s give individuals the same tax breaks as those who work for large employers. The small business owner should have the same tax breaks as someone working for IBM. Let’s allow people to purchase health savings accounts and what they use will come out of their health and savings account.

The health care plan rammed through the U. S. Senate by Senator Schumer will swell the ranks of the jobless, raise taxes on those who can least afford them, cause health insurance premiums to skyrocket, and place federal bureaucrats between doctor and patient. It will deprive millions of Americans of access to the quality health care they have come to expect, retard the development of new miracle drugs and medical devices, force doctors into early retirement, and ruin the best health care system the world has known. In New York State, we will see the skyrocketing rates in our health insurance plans. The quality of health care will not improve and I expect that it will decline tremendously. Right now, in New York State, doctors are leaving by the droves and going to such places as Texas because of the exponential rise in their medical liability insurance. We’ve got to stop the frivolous lawsuits being filed against doctors and we’ve got to reduce the cost of defensive medicine.

FS: How do you think President Obama’s cuts in defense and his work towards ending nuclear proliferation will ultimately effect the security of the USA and what is your view on the US role in Afghanistan as it pertains to curtailing the power of the Taliban?

JT: The jury is out on Afghanistan. I know General David Petraeus as he is a resident of Cornwall on the Hudson and I trust him implicitly. It was he who made the troop surge work. Senator Schumer predicted that it would end up being a colossal failure. Given his track record in Iraq, I fell that Gen. Petraeus has the ability to extricate our troops from Afghanistan. How long will it take for us to accomplish our goals? It might be a 20 to 30 year commitment but I believe we can accomplish what we set out to in terms of the war on terror and we cannot stop until our goals are met.

Right now, we are the mightiest military power on earth. We are the most loved country and the most feared country by our adversaries. If we cease to maintain our military prowess, then other things cease to matter. We can only champion human rights and dignity by protecting those in this world who find themselves under the thumb of tyrannical regimes and we can only be effective at that by being a mighty military power. History shows us that both the French and Ottoman empires were powerful forces until their armies were destroyed. The Soviet Union is no longer a threat but China is now poised to become a threat in terms of a world military power. China is building a navy and will become the world’s biggest military power. It is incumbent on Congress and the Senate to protect our military and our nation’s citizens. That should be our first obligation. We must adjust our resources and use them wisely and we must now allow our stellar military to atrophy.

FS: Concerning spending and the deficit, you mention the growing role of China over our money supply and the fact that our national debt is close to $13 trillion because of the health care reform bill and cap and trade. What legislation would you propose to lower the national debt?

JT: Let’s repeal this monstrous health-care reform bill. We can accomplish this without entitlements. The second thing is we have to get real about our rate of spending. We can’t continue to run these structural deficits with out bankrupting our country. When you run these kinds of deficits you either borrow money or raise taxes. We have to live within our means. We have to balance the budget by saying no to more spending. We are drowning the next generation in a tsunami of red ink, creating new entitlements that will force this nation to borrow 10 trillion dollars over the next decade, devalue our currency, and cede to the Chinese control over our money supply and the power to raise interest rates on cars, credit cards and home mortgages. When you extract money from our budget and give it to federal bureaucrats who do not understand how to create jobs then you find yourself in the mess that we’re in. Unemployment rates go up while Medicaid is totally out of control in New York State and is draining the residents of our state.

I talk to people all over New York State and they tell me that their property taxes are just killing them. The quickest way to bring about property tax relief is by not accepting mandates from anyone. We must reduce the cost of energy and the cost of health care because that it directly tied to the fact that our banks are no longer lending money to small businesses. 80 percent of jobs in upstate New York are generated by small businesses that can’t get bank loans because the banks ask these businesses to present their revenue projections for the next few years. These businesses do not know what their energy or health care costs will be so they can’t give an accurate projection, so they can’t get a loan. The tax relief of 2001 and 2003 will soon expire and dividends, capitol gains and income taxes will go up unless Congress decides to act.

———————————————-

Fern Sidman holds a B.A, in political science from Brooklyn College. She was the educational coordinator for the Betar Youth Movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She was national director of the Jewish Defense League from 1983-1985. She was a researcher for several books written by Rabbi Meir Kahane, ZTK”L. She was the managing editor of the publication entitled, The Voice of Judea, and is a regular contributor to its web site. She is currently a writer and journalist living in New York City. Her articles have appeared in The Jewish Press, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, and numerous Jewish and general web sites including, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Pipes and Michael Freund.
We are delighted to have Ms. Sidman as a regular contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Ant-Christians are emboldened by this current president, the new mix on the supreme court and their distinct anti-Christian attitudes.

Arizona school children are told they can’t pray in front of the Supreme Court building … Two University of Texas Arlington employees are fired for praying over a co-worker’s cubicle after work hours … In Cranston, R.I., a high school banner causes controversy when a parent complains it contains a prayer and demands that it be removed.

There are more legal challenges to prayer in the United States than ever before, says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist organization whose business is booming as Americans increasingly tackle church vs. state issues.

“We’ve never had more complaints about government prayer,” Gaylor says. “We have just hired a second staff attorney in July. It’s turned into a cottage industry for our attorneys.”

The foundation has had a huge volume of complaints about prayer in the public sector, including numerous issues involving civic and government meetings where sessions have traditionally begun with a prayer or moment of silence.

In Augusta, Ga., the city’s law department just issued a legal opinion defending the city’s practice of a pre-meeting prayer, saying it does not violate federal law. The statement was in response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s letter to the mayor’s office urging him to stop the invocations at the start of meetings. The foundation sent similar letters to three cities in South Carolina.

“These are flagrant violations of the laws,” Gaylor says.

Not so, says Nate Kellum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Arizona school children and their teacher, Maureen Rigo, who say they were told they couldn’t pray on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

“Religious liberties are under attack across the country,” Kellum says. “My sense is that there’s some type of knee-jerk reaction, almost an allergic reaction, if someone sees the expression of religion,” he says.

And the bulk of the complaints are directed at Christians, he says.

“There’s an overreaching presumption that there’s something wrong,” he says.

But Gaylor says there’s no country in the world where religion flourishes as much as in the United States, and she says conflicts over public expression are going to increase.

“Fifteen percent of the people are not religious,” she says. “There’s an increasing plurality of faiths. It’s inevitable there’s going to be this clash with more people being offended.”

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Institute, represents the two University of Texas employees who were fired for praying over a co-worker’s desk after hours. The co-worker was not there at the time and didn’t know until months later why the employees were fired.

The university, in legal documents, said it the employee’s prayer had been deemed harassment. Judge Terry Means of the U.S. Federal District Court in Ft. Worth rejected that argument.

“One of the women just said ‘amen’ while the other prayed,” Shackelford said. “So she was fired for just saying ‘amen.'”

“It’s just so crazy!” he said. “There’s a hostility, and there are folks who want to change this country and want to engage in some kind of religious cleansing.”

Shackelford is also part of the legal team that filed a brief on Thursday defending the National Day of Prayer, which a federal judge ruled unconstitutional in April. Though the Justice Department announced one week later that it planned to appeal the judge’s ruling, and despite President Obama’s proclamation of National Prayer Day the next month, the Liberty Institute along with the Family Research Council took legal action because of what they claim is “the Obama Administration’s weak defense of the NDP.”

The council’s president, Tony Perkins, issued a statement saying, “The President’s attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square.”

Shackelford says, “The thing that makes [America] unique is that we believe our freedoms don’t come from government, they come from God.”

But it’s exactly beliefs about God that form the core of the legal conflicts, and will continue to do so — because whether people believe in God is something no court can have jurisdiction over.

07.23.10

Yet another attempt by the liberal education system to force Christians to accept homosexuality as “good” and “normal”.

A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.

School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a “remediation” program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a “state of being” as a professor said, according to the complaint.

Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system’s board of regents.

The remediation program was to include “sensitivity training” on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a “gay pride parade” and report on it.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person’s beliefs be changed.

“ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity,” the law firm explained.

ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student “shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here.”

“Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” he said. “Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer’s only crime was to have the beliefs that she does.”

Keeton’s own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.

“At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don’t believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can’t alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation,” she wrote.

Faculty members had demanded she “attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations.” They also wanted her to “develop” her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending “the Gay Pride Parade.”

Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.

“By conditioning Miss Keeton’s continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton,” the complaint alleges.

“The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner,” the complaint said.

We have first hand proof (in the form of some of the comments we get from our readers) that there is a great deal of dis-information concerning the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.

Christians from all 50 states and around the world gathered in America’s capital July 20-22 for the sole purpose of supporting the state of Israel. John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and the founder of CUFI, told the crowd that the Bible is a Zionist text from Genesis to Revelation — and Christians, he stated, must speak out for Israel.

“Can we support any peace process that rejects Israel’s right to exist? The answer is no, we can’t,” he stated, answering his own question. “Peace is a two-way street. Israel cannot make all the concessions for peace. The Palestinians must also make concessions for peace.”

Hagee pledged the group would stand with Israel against Islamic terrorists, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and growing threats to stop efforts to create a Jewish state.

07.22.10

Another city is preparing to normalize the deviant homosexual lifestyle.

A proposed ordinance in Memphis, Tenn., that would ban discrimination against gays is causing outrage among some local critics who say the ordinance itself would be discriminatory — against people who oppose homosexuality because of their religious beliefs.

“It’s going to discriminate against people of faith who are Christians in their worldview, and I believe with all my heart that they have rights too,” says Bellevue Baptist Church Pastor Steven Gaines.

The amendment to the city’s existing non-discrimination policy, which was presented to the city council Tuesday, would prohibit the city from discriminating based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression against employees, as well as anyone who has a contract with the city or who uses city facilities.

City Councilwoman Janis Fullilove, who sponsored the proposal at the request of gay rights organization Tennessee Equality Project, told the council Tuesday that every human deserves the right to be protected in the workplace.

“All people should be able to make a living, to provide for their families and contribute to their communities without fear of losing their jobs for something that has nothing to do with their job performance,” said Jonathan Cole, a spokesman for Tennessee Equality Project. “Right now it’s legal in Memphis to be fired simply because someone is gay or lesbian or transgender.”

But council member Barbara Swearengen Ware said the ordinance is simply unnecessary.

“Is there a box on the application
that requires people to check gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender? Then how do I know you are unless you’re trying to flaunt it in my face?” she asked at the meeting, then contended that the city is already an equal opportunity employer and doesn’t need the amendment, the Memphis Flyer reported.

Critics also voiced concerns over biological men using women’s bathrooms.

Fullilove responded by telling the council, “I know there are a lot of people with concerns about people going to the rest room. But how many times do you go into a restroom and look into the stall and ask, what are you? A man or a woman?”

Cole told Fox News he respects concerns that some critics have for the pending legislation, but he was especially bothered by the outrage coming from Bellevue Baptist Church.

“They really lack moral authority on the issue,” he said. “This is the same congregation that can’t even share a softball field with a lesbian coach.”

The church allegedly told a lesbian coach that her team would not be able to play in their church softball league after they discovered her sexual orientation.

“We think it would be wrong to have any city tax dollars go towards discriminating against any city employee,” Cole said.

However, Cole stressed that his group is willing to make some concessions and perhaps offer churches an exemption from the proposed law.

“We’re willing to start somewhere by giving them an exemption,” he said. “At least for the time being.”

The ordinance is scheduled to be discussed again before the full council on August 3.

07.21.10

In February 2009, Aasiya Z. Hassan, a 37-year-old Muslim woman, was found decapitated in Orchard Park, N.Y., a village near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, admits that he beheaded his wife. Yet now, in a bizarre turn in the case, Muzzammil Hassan has claimed that he was the real victim in the case, driven to murder his wife after enduring years of her emotional and physical abuse.

The case stands as a classic example of the universal tendency on the part of Islamic supemacists and jihadists to blame everyone but themselves for what they have done.

In a larger sense, Muzzammil Hassan’s attempt to claim that he was actually the victim of the woman he beheaded is exactly like the jihadis blaming American foreign policy for the global jihad, and is related to the campaign to get the West to “stop linking Islam with terrorism.”

Islamic jihadists link Islam with terrorism with consistency and religious fervor, but if a Western non-Muslim notices this, he is “hateful,” “bigoted,” “Islamophobic,” “ignorant of Islam,” etc. Never would the Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of “hate” for “linking Islam with terrorism” ever look to themselves, see the responsibility for the link as being within the Muslim community rather than outside it, and challenge those jihadists instead.

It is always someone else’s fault. In this case, according to the Buffalo News, “Hassan has never publicly denied killing his wife. Instead, he has suggested he will build his court defense on the grounds that as a long-abused spouse, he finally snapped and killed his wife in a desperate bid to end the psychological abuse inflicted upon him.” Hassan himself has claimed that “anytime I sought outside help, I got falsely accused of sexual misconduct or physical abuse—more than 12 police reports, each in response to my reaching out for help from counselors, my family or her family.”

Poor lamb. Clearly the only option left open to him was to behead his wife.

It seems as if Muzzammil Hassan is an old hand at this kind of deception. He beheaded Aasiya in the offices of the Muslim cable channel, Bridges TV, which he founded. Muzzammil Hassan founded Bridges TV in 2004 to combat the negative perceptions of Muslims that he thought were dominating the mainstream media.

According to a Reuters story at the time, none other than Aasiya “came up with the idea.” It was all about depicting Muslims as moderate and peaceful. Muzzammil explained: “Some derogatory comments were being made about Muslims that offended her. She was seven-months pregnant, and she thought she didn’t want her kids growing up in this environment.”

Bridges TV originally declared that its intention was to “fuse American culture with the values of Islam in a healthy, family-oriented way.”

However, there were indications at the outset that it might not have been as moderate as many assumed. Bridges TV from the beginning had ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, and Islamicity.com, which retails rabid anti-Semitic literature. In 2006 Arab News reported that Hassan was trying to raise money for the network from Saudi investors.

Government and law enforcement officials should have recognized these warning signs and paid more heed to Aasiya Hassan’s claims of abuse. The mainstream media should not have given Muzzammil Hassan credibility as a “moderate” Muslim without looking more deeply into his connections. And on a larger scale, the claims of groups like CAIR that have so many connections to terror groups and activities should no longer be taken at face value.

The stakes are simply too high. And the decapitated body of Aasiya Hassan will be just the beginning if these words are not needed, as they probably will not be.

Muzzammil Hassan is not a victim. Muzzammil Hassan is a murderer. Islamic jihadists worldwide are not victims of American foreign policy, or Israel’s, or of anything else. They are murderers. If the West doesn’t regain its moral clarity about this, it will not prevail against them.